Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 473 (500777)
03-02-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by lyx2no
03-02-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Here Here
Here Here!
Where? Where?
I think the expression you're looking for is:
Hear! Hear!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 12:31 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 473 (501123)
03-04-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by ICANT
03-04-2009 12:03 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
When people are determined to prove their point they will take all means to do so.
Like cherry picking one verse out of a song of David I Chro. 6:8 through I Chro. 6:36 and making it to be talking about cosmology.
That's exactly what you do with your crap on Gen 1&2.
What does hypocrisy taste like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 03-04-2009 12:03 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 473 (518587)
08-06-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Young Earthling
08-06-2009 4:11 PM


Re: The flat earth
It seems to me that some people are trying to make a case for the bible being errant. This would in turn allow them to disregard any authority of the bible and try to make Christians, even Jews, denounce their written book of authority...
I can see that the Bible is not inerrant and it doesn't make me
denounce it.
which would lead to what exactly.
It allows us to see it for what it is as opposed to butchering it in an attept to maintain its inerrancy. Just look at some of the mental gymnastics that people have to perform to maintain that, and how much they have to twist their interpretations, which hilariously means they're no longer reading it literally.
Yes we will defend our authoritative book. It contains the information we need to get to know who our Living God is and what kind of life and deeds He wants for us...all of us, whether you want to accept Him or not.
It makes so much more sense when you can accept that it can contain some errors here and there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Young Earthling, posted 08-06-2009 4:11 PM Young Earthling has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Young Earthling, posted 08-06-2009 5:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 473 (542657)
01-11-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Sky-Writing
01-11-2010 4:17 PM


The error is only in the readers mind.
There are four gospels, each telling a different point of view from a different perspective. All are painting an increasingly accurate picture with each retelling of the same events.
Who is the first person Jesus spoke to after leaving his tomb and how many people were there?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 4:17 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 368 of 473 (542662)
01-11-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Sky-Writing
01-11-2010 4:37 PM


These passages mean exactly what they say; the Earth is fixed and immobile.
Fixed to what? Flat space or curved space?
The Earth is *NOT* fixed and immoble. The Bible is wrong about that.
prefer the fixed explaination.
"The world spins like a top at 2000 MPH"
"The solar system hurls through space at "
Hey guess what? I don't even KNOW how fast we are moving.
What do I USE TO MEASURE OUR SPEED???
quote:
The sun and its planets are known to streak through the void of space at approximately 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) an hour.
source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 4:37 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 372 of 473 (542677)
01-11-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Sky-Writing
01-11-2010 7:13 PM


The Earth is *NOT* fixed and immobile.
The earth is NOT fixed to what?
Not fixed to the sun?
Not Fixed to The solar system?
Not in a fixed orbit?
Right, it is not "fixed" to anything. To say that the Earth is fixed is wrong.
I don't know what you mean by a "fixed orbit", but I could probably imagine a way that the Earth could be described as fixed to something (that itself would have to be moving), and I suppose I could reconcile that to prevent the Bible from actually being 'wrong', but then I wouldn't be reading the Bible literally anymore, and I could just make up whatever I want it to be saying. I think it would be pathetic of me to go through all those mental gymnastics just to maintain that the Bible is inerrant, which would also probably mean that my faith was a house of cards whereas a single error in the book means that I'd stop believing in God. And sense I wouldn't be able to bring myself to do that, I wouldn't actually listen to or consider anybody's argument as to why that would be a horrible interpretation and also a basterdizing of the religion.
So, I'm not actually going to argue against 'fixed' meaning 'stable orbit'.
And that doesn't even touch on the "immoble" part. I can't even imagine the crazy antics I'd have to come up with to make that one fit. Care to humor us all with your attempt?
What about " The earth is in a Stable orbit around the sun which is shooting through the heavens at 62,000 MPH."
If you think that the writers thought that the Earth was a big ball flying through space around the sun, then you have a lot to learn about their culture. If you started a new thread on it then I, and I'd bet many others here, would help in correcting your misconceptions. Or would you rather I did? Would you participate?
Plus, that's hardly 'immovable', eh?
See, the problem is that anything will look wrong to you.
So..If you can't see how the rest is correct, then you can't see this either.
You're incapable of knowing that, and actually your wrong.
I do "see how the rest is correct". I'm just not going to lie to myself to maintain its inerrancy, especially when its so obvious like the example we're discussing.
At this point your position is that when they wrote "fixed and immovable" they were accurate and probably referring to the Earth's orbit, right? Don't you see that the writers didn't view their world like that?
Or are we going to go down the route of God inspiring them in a way that they wrote something that was completely different than what they understood themselves to be writing?

You Creep.
Let the record show that my attemps at civility have been met with insult. What I mean to say is... he started it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 7:13 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 409 of 473 (546522)
02-11-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by greyseal
02-11-2010 11:42 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Do you disagree with my idea?
I like it. To me it does read as god naming the dry land Earth... but it still isn't referring to the whole planet.
"the waters above" and "the waters below" seem to be predominantly god's domain and were apparently there before he created "earth"
"Apparently"?!
Where is this apparent?
It is NOT apparent in the text of the Holy Bible. You may have heard it said. You may have imagined it to be so. But you DID NOT read it from the Bible. The Bible clearly states that the separation of the water was a direct result of placing a firmament "in the midst of" the water.
Well, I see god creating the heaven and the earth and dividing the waters (the firmament became heaven) - but I don't explicitly see god creating the waters!
Can you show me where he does?
It think that he thought that you were saying that "above" and "below" were already divided before the creation, which would be wrong.
But you are right that the waters were already there.
quote:
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
I think I read something here before about some Jewish folklore with the whole face of the deep and waters thing being the null, or default, state of all exstence.... or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 11:42 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 411 of 473 (546536)
02-11-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by greyseal
02-11-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Many religions have a "formless" default state of creation, it is often identified with "water", probably because water doesn't shape itself,
Isn't water also thought of as some kind of essence of all things, or something like that.
I'd have to do some searching but I'm kinda busy at work now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 1:26 PM greyseal has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 413 of 473 (546548)
02-11-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by doctrbill
02-11-2010 2:06 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
This challenges your theory about capitalization being related to awareness of "earth" being a planet.
I'm pretty sure he's NOT saying that the capitalization is related to awareness of "earth" being a planet. He's saying they're using it in a proper noun form as the name of the dry land (which they don't think is a planet).
Like:
Let the dry earth be named Earth...
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by doctrbill, posted 02-11-2010 2:06 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 415 of 473 (546564)
02-11-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by greyseal
02-11-2010 3:05 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
and stick to the KJV as being the best - it was made with older manuscripts than the Catholics
Huh?
Growing up Catholic, we always used the KJV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 3:05 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 418 of 473 (546579)
02-11-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by greyseal
02-11-2010 3:38 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Huh?
Growing up Catholic, we always used the KJV.
O RLY?
I thought the official Catholic bible was the vulgate from
never heard of it...
I dunno what the "official" one is, but in my 12 years of Catholic school we used the KJV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 3:38 PM greyseal has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 447 of 473 (553122)
04-01-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by rockondon
04-01-2010 2:58 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
.......they usually have the integrity to admit that they were wrong.
But not you.
An honest person would admit that the word has multiple definitions, including the planet earth, and would consider those many definitions to reach their own interpretation of that verse.
Erets cannot be referring to a planet, as in a large sphere flying around in space. The concept was simply unavailable at the time.
Even it meaning "whole earth (as opposed to part)" is not referring to a planet as a large sphere flying around in space. Those people just did not have that concept available to them.
But not you.
An honest person would admit that the word has multiple definitions, including the planet earth, and would consider those many definitions to reach their own interpretation of that verse.
But not you.
You decided on a particular interpretation and are so steadfastly opposed to the idea that your interpretation could be wrong that you refuse to accept alternative definitions even when they are put right in front of you.
How dare you! PD is a very nice, reasonable, and honest person. You're just being a dick.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by rockondon, posted 04-01-2010 2:58 PM rockondon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by rockondon, posted 04-02-2010 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 450 of 473 (553287)
04-02-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by rockondon
04-02-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
Erets cannot be referring to a planet, as in a large sphere flying around in space. The concept was simply unavailable at the time.
But wasn't it divinely inspired? Isn't the bible inerrant?
The Bible is clearly not inerrant, and nobody knows whether or not it was divinely inspired.
If you want to assume its divinely inspired, then you have to wonder why God would tell them something that's true meaning was completely different than what they thought it to be (i.e. erets referring to a concept they were unable to have).
My position is that Isaiah described the world as he thought it was, a flat disc.
And that is not a planet, so you don't think they were referring to a planet either.
So why argue otherwise? I think that you think that when they referred to the earth in it entirety, that that must mean a planet. But that is our modern understanding of the earth in its entirety and they were incapable of having that concept, so them referring to the entire earth could not be them referring to a planet as we understand it today.
I've often heard that Isaiah said the earth was round before anyone else knew it was, so I'm pointing out that not only is that wrong, but that his claims are further proof that the bible is not inerrant.
Arguing that erets does refer to a planet isn't anything close to the argument above
And I've clearly shown that one of the meanings of erets is the earth...the entire earth. Not just dirt, or ground, or land, but the entire planet.
No. The entire earth does not equal a planet for their conception of our world. Showing it refers to the enitre earth does not show that they're referring to a planet. As you said, to them the enitire earth was a disc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by rockondon, posted 04-02-2010 1:28 PM rockondon has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 454 of 473 (554070)
04-06-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by purpledawn
04-06-2010 8:04 AM


Re: Update on Severian
I assume by what he describes that he is pointing up towards the sky as north. I also assume that he means the ground is south. It sounds like he's redefining the directions to fit his purpose and making up his own "science." It would be interesting to know where he was placing the directions.
If he is staying true to accepted directions, then he really has the sun doing a dance.
Not necessarily. The sun does go south of you and then come back towards the north. Standing in my back yard, the sun is not directly over head, it is to the south. When it sets, it comes back towards the north a little and sets closer to due west.
Like this:
or this:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 8:04 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 11:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 456 of 473 (554083)
04-06-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by purpledawn
04-06-2010 11:19 AM


Re: Update on Severian
So the Septuagint version is still describing what one can see and understand standing in their backyard.
...
So is Severian saying the sun goes back across the sky behind the "curtain" or "wall" as he put it? Basically enter stage left, run across the stage, exiting stage right, run behind the curtain to enter at stage left again.
Yeah, that's what it looks like to me.
If that is true, then Severian is still going against the Greek reasoning of the time and I don't see that the scripture supports the idea of "going behind the curtain". Unless I'm still not understanding what he's saying.
I think you're getting it right, and it does go against the Greek reasoning, but what scripture are you thinking of that doesn't mesh with it?
Thanks again for the photos. I like visuals.
Oh yeah. Way better than trying to describe that path of the sun in words.
Google Images FTW!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 11:19 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024